Quote:
Originally Posted by Leyor
They've been released under Creative Commons licenses, which usually in terms of consumers and the general public gives away claim to ownership.
I don't think it's fair to users of Creative Commons licenses to liken it to Copyright in this particular debate, as it's created explicitly to combat many of the aspects of Copyright we're debating here, mainly how Copyright prevents works from entering the public domain and accessability to the public.
I mean for petes sake, they even call it Copyleft. While you can argue that Creative Commons are derived from Copyright, and in terms of commercial use only share similar aspects, for this purpose you can really only make semantic comparisons.
|
From the Creative Commons website:
Quote:
How does a Creative Commons license operate?
A Creative Commons license is based on copyright. CC licenses apply to works that are protected by copyright law.
|
As I said, copyright law is the legal framework that enables Creative Commons to work. Creative Commons uses copyright law to enable the free dissemination of information, and while one can use a Creative Commons license to put something into the Public Domain, one of the major functions of Creative Commons licensing is to allow the free release of something while maintaining copyright. It empowers authors to give their books away and still be able to sell the movie rights.